Scalia wants everyone to ‘get over it’
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia usually shies away from media attention, but now that he has a book coming out, and interviews might help sell his new product, Scalia is opening up a bit. He chatted with “60 Minutes” and the discussion turned to “Bush v. Gore.”
Scalia’s message? Critics of the ruling should just “get over it.”
He said the notion that the decision was politically motivated is “nonsense,” and proceeded to blame Al Gore for filing suit in the first place. “It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question…. We didn’t go looking for trouble. It was he who said, ‘I want this to be decided by the courts,’” Scalia said.
Actually, as I recall, Gore didn’t have much of a choice — Florida was led by his opponent’s brother and a Secretary of State who was the co-chair of his opponent’s campaign, both of whom had decided to cut short the vote-counting process. Gore didn’t want to make it a “judicial question”; he needed to try to bring some integrity to the Florida system.
Regardless, I’m struck by this notion that Democrats should just “get over it.”
It’s become a fairly common refrain, hasn’t it? The right does something offensive, the left gets mad when there are no consequences, time elapses, and the right, annoyed by lingering resentment, tells the left to “get over it.”
That’s easier said than done.
It’s possible that I’m just petty. I have a hard time forgiving and forgetting. But every time I hear conservatives argue that we should “get over it,” I’m reminded of why I continue to harbor grudges.
Republicans threw the political world into turmoil in 1998 by launching an impeachment crusade against Bill Clinton. It was an absurd and painful exercise. Those of us who are still annoyed by the fight are supposed to “get over it.”
In 2000, Republicans orchestrated a massive fraud in Florida, and, with the help of the Supreme Court, delivered the presidency to the candidate who came in second. Those of us who harbor resentment are told we should “get over it.”
Bush failed to take the terrorist threat seriously before 9/11? “Get over it.” Bush launched a disastrous war? “Get over it.” Bush is rewarding Swiftboat liars who helped smear a war hero with a vicious lie? “Get over it.”
It’s not enough for the GOP and its allies to engage in offensive conduct; they also insist, after a short while, that we stop being bothered by it.
This reminds me a great deal of a scene in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail.” John Cleese’s Sir Lancelot storms a castle, sword in hand, murdering most of a wedding party based on the mistaken belief that a maiden was in desperate need of a rescue. The castle owner, anxious to curry favor with Lancelot, encourages the survivors of the attack to let bygones be bygones. As the castle owner tells his guests, “Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed whom….”
We’ve heard the same message from the right for quite a while. Let’s not bicker and argue about who unnecessarily impeached whom, or who stole which election, or who was responsible for which foreign policy catastrophe, or who viciously smeared whom to win an election. The important thing is that we all “get over it” and look forward. After all, it’s wrong to hold a grudge, right?
Maybe it’s just me, but I find it very difficult to let bygones be bygones.
ditto
Sure Steve, and I suppose you think Republicans should get over “bitter”, Jeremiah Wright, and Playboys in the barracks.
As I prepare for our three day Confederate Memorial Day weekend, I’d like to tell the right to get over it. When I here yet another complaint about Roe v Wade, I say, Get Over It. When I hear another story about Monica Lewinsky, I say get over it. I’m just waiting to get over the whole damn Bush administration.
See the reaction you get when you tell a winger to get over Roe v Wade, Engel v Vitale, or U.S. v Miller, or Lincoln v Davis
“It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question…. We didn’t go looking for trouble. It was he who said, ‘I want this to be decided by the courts,’” Scalia said.
On a more serious note, I simply cannot believe a US Supreme Court Justice would use this kind of simplistic reasoning. No wonder he doesn’t do many interviews and hates cameras or other recording devices.
fuck. him.
So?
Keep that refrain in mind for righties when Bush cronies start getting hard questions about torture, obstruction of justice and criminal conspiracy, etc that put their little cloven hooves on the path to war crimes trials (and hopefully prison)
“It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question…. We didn’t go looking for trouble. It was he who said, ‘I want this to be decided by the courts,’” Scalia said.
First, Bush was the one who lobbied to have it handled by the Supreme Court — hence the styling Bush v. Gore. Second, the Court didn’t have to accept it. It could have ruled that it had no jurisdiction and even cited a ton of Scalia’s own decisions to support that argument.
But they didn’t. They intervened in a political matter and a state issue, despite the majority’s long set of precedents arguing on the other side of the issue, and then said, this is a one-time deal and this case should never be used as a precedent in the future. It’s a bizarrely-determined, laughably-argued decision.
In the end, Scalia wants us to “get over it” only because he knows it was a complete bullshit decision and remains as the biggest black mark on his judicial record.
Fuck you, Fat Tony. We’re carving this one on your tombstone.
Hey Tony,
I’ll get over it as soon as you Republicans get over Roe v. Wade.
Until then, BLOW ME!
Scalia is the worst “judicial activist” on the Supreme Court. He is a strong proponent of ’states’ rights’ — unless the states do something he doesn’t like. Then he argues that strong federal laws are needed.
Scalia should remember that his “Originalism” philosophy would still allow for impeachment of a supreme court justice.
I’m sure he would get over it, though.
I really despise that time of conservative.
I could be persuaded that the Supreme Court needs fixing, Roosevelt-style. It is not quite as bad as the one that he inherited, but it is in a sorry state.
However, I’m thankful we were spared “Justices” Harriet Myers and Alberto Gonzales.
“It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question…. We didn’t go looking for trouble. It was he who said, ‘I want this to be decided by the courts,’” Scalia said.
You have to admire Scalia’s ability to insulate his personal opinions from his judicial decisions. Now we learn the man sincerely believed that the courts had no role to play in the election, yet he was still compelled to intervene. He’s a -sniff- hero.
Democracy is such an outdated concept. So what if the Republicans are trampling on the principle. Just get over it.
We should be able to get over the loss of our ideas such as free elections. Look at how easily Republicans were willing to drop one of their core ideas–states rights–when they interfered in a Florida election. They could get over it.
It’s a shame that this week’s episode of Boston Legal was pure fantasy. Alan Shore told the Supreme Court justices what he thinks of them–including the activist judges who overturned an election.
There’s no getting over it because it’s not over. The damage that resulted from that SC decision continues and will continue after Bush is gone.
Look at how easily Republicans were willing to drop one of their core ideas–states rights–when they interfered in a Florida election.
Not to mention Terri Schaivo…
And remember that Scalia is not even the worst conservative on the court; Alito and Thomas are far less thoughtful and even more reactionary. We must elect a Dem for president or the court will be lost for 30 years.
And just think: If McCain is elected, he will put a couple of more Scalias on the bench to replace Stevens and Ginsberg. On the issue of SCOTUS justices, it doesn’t matter if we elect Obama or Hillary. If does matter that we don’t elect McCain.
A conspiracy by nature has to have all parties involved all the way to the top or it fails. This administration from the very beginning has tried it’s best to make socialism look attractive. They still do not seem to be afraid of the consequences which scares me.
Impeachment 1998 — An unsuccessful attempt by the right wing to overturn the results of a presidential election.
Florida 2000 — A successful attempt by the right wing to overturn the results of a presidential election.
“It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question…. We didn’t go looking for trouble. It was he who said, ‘I want this to be decided by the courts,’” Scalia said.
Just unbelievable.
First, as TR notes above, the case was Bush v. Gore. Not Gore v. Bush. Gore didn’t go looking for Scalia’s input.
Second, the suggestion that merely requesting relief in ANY court invites some other court to exceed its own jurisdiction and decide questions not properly before it is so insanely stupid, that it is hard to believe that Scalia would say it. Yes, I strongly oppose many of his positions. But he generally acts like a clever, well-reasoned ideologue not a pull-any-argument-from-my-ass wingnut.
What an embarassment.
I don’t know if your comments section accepts links, but Robert Parry’s Consortium News website has the best reporting of the 2000 campaign debacle.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/campaign.html
I just can’t get over how disunited these united states actually are. Hardly a union anymore. Were I younger, I’d really question fighting for it without asking for whom and for what?
T Moore said:
“We must elect a Dem for president or the court will be lost for 30 years.”
If RepubCo gets another round of SC picks there will be nothing to put back together in 30 years and maybe even 8. We’re already on the edge of dissolution of what this country is supposed to be about. The veil protecting corporate well being becomes ever more opaque and the illusion of personal security and recourse is becoming less than even an illusion.
Even with a Dem win in ‘08, America will be teetering. Unless Dems are able to inflict many “get over it” policies and practices on RepubCo and Korporate Amerika, the U.S. will continue it’s drift toward a stripped, bankrupt irrelevance.
Did anyone notice that even if the US Supreme Court had allowed the counting to continue that Bush still would have had more votes that Gore in Florida??????
Gore only asked for a recount in a few counties and he did not pick up enough votes in those counties to win the election.
Also please remember that popular vote totals are similar to the number of runs scored in the World Series. Usually the team with the most runs win but it is the team who wins 4 games or gets 270 votes that gets the trophy.
I have argued on several occasions on this site that whichever Dem you currently support for POTUS you must support the eventual nominee because of the SCOTUS. This trumps every petty difference we have with Obama or Clinton. Seriously.
You want to talk about a “get over it” moment? This is it. Once all the states have voted, or one of the candidates concedes (ha!), then we must rally around the nominee or face a grossly conservative SCOTUS. Anyone who says if their preferred Dem candidate isn’t nominated will stay home or vote for Nader or vote for McCain needs to pull his/her head out of his/her armpit and get some oxygen to his/her brain.
neil wilson (#26)
Your argument would hold more weight if it was clear that there has been no serious voter disenfranchisement in the selected counties. The problem is it isn’t clear at all.
I’m not saying for sure Al Gore won, but there is certainly doubt about how things were handled.
Besides the sheer gall of his statement, something else struck me - isn’t it his, you know, JOB to continually look back at the past decisions of the court? Isn’t that what being a justice is - interpreting decisions made by previous courts to guide decision making? Does that mean that future Supreme Courts are allowed to ignore this ruling? Telling us to “get over it” is like an auto mechanic saying, “yeah, your engine is on fire, but don’t worry about it.” Is he totally oblivious to the fact that this may have dangerous ramifications in the future, or just willfully ignoring it?
neil wilson said:
Gore only asked for a recount in a few counties and he did not pick up enough votes in those counties to win the election.
We will probably never know the true vote totals in Florida, but we can at least get the facts correct.
Neil, you fucking idiot, Gore could only ask for a recount in a few counties because Florida election law only allowed for recounts on a precinct-by-precinct basis. Each request for a recount had to be made with some sort of demonstration or irregularity in the way the votes were counted.
Gore couldn’t ask for a statewide recount, because Florida law didn’t allow such a request.
Unbelievable. A guy who sits on the bench in the highest court in the land for those in search of justice says, “get over it?” Scalia obviously has no concept of what justice is. I get the feeling this is Scalia’s attitude about all the case he presides over. It’s an attitude just like Bush’s: I’m the decider and you have to live with my decisions. Seeking justice is a virtue, merely passing judgements and telling the plaintiffs to go f*ck themselves is simply an act of ego.
But please justice Scalia, can you mention this same line to the folks protesting Roe v. Wade? I’d like to think that for even your tortured perspective on justice that it should still cut both ways.
Aren’t the thousands of Americans killed in Iraq “old news”? When are these people going to “get over it”?
Look, I’m probably as responsible as anyone for propping up this President, but you don’t see me whining.
Scalia would no doubt fine reasons to rule in favor of any Vichy-style regime! -Kevo
Scalia — afraid of sunlight?
I was not completely accurate in my earlier comment (#30).
Florida law required a mandatory state-wide recount because of the narrow difference in the vote. Florida law allowed challenges of the counts only on a precinct-by-precinct basis.
Sure, Bush started the war, but can you imagine what Al Gore would have done as President? We’d probably be obsessing about Global Warming!
Did anyone notice that even if the US Supreme Court had allowed the counting to continue that Bush still would have had more votes that Gore in Florida??????
That is irrelevant. The problem is that it was incorrect for the Supreme Court to block the recount. The decision was wrong regardless of its effect on the outcome.
Besides, while Bush would have won if only the counties involved in at the time were counted, a full state wide recount (which they should have ultimately done if the Supreme Court hadn’t intervened) would have given the state to Gore.
You don’t honestly expect me to take responsibility for this administration, do you? I mean, it’s really been a trainwreck! What a disaster! I can’t take responsibility for that!
It’s possible that I’m just petty. I have a hard time forgiving and forgetting. But every time I hear conservatives argue that we should “get over it,” I’m reminded of why I continue to harbor grudges.
It’s possible, but it certainly isn’t just you. I loath these people with every fiber of my being and always will. “Republican” is just about the worst insult I can think of. I can’t understand why anyone would want to be one, to me the word is synonymous with situational ethics and hypocrisy.
29. imarx said: Does that mean that future Supreme Courts are allowed to ignore this ruling?
That’s easy to answer. Bush v. Gore was a one-off decision, it was intentionally and explicitly written so that it had no precedential value. That is one of the ways you could tell it was a political decision, because the majority made sure the questionable reasoning could never be used against Republican candidates in the future.
I once ran over a two year old girl on a tricycle when I was driving home drunk from judicial happy hour, and you don’t see me taking responsibility for that, do you?
Dishonest in both the opinions (the decision and the order granting the stay), Scalia is now dishonest about the procedural history of the case? It was James Baker, III, who filed for an injunction to stop the recount on behalf of Bush. And it was Scalia who said that Bush would be irreparably harmed by a recount. What a fucking creep!
OK, so I am a F&##$king idiot from #30.
Let’s review some facts. (or at least what this idiot perceives to be facts)
More people intended to vote for Gore than for Bush. There were significant votes for Buchanan in districts with huge proportions of holocaust survivors. There appear to have been a number of people who voted a straight Democratic ticket except for President. Let’s all thank the butterfly ballot for electing President Bush.
More people actually voted for Gore than for Bush in Florida. There were over 300 discarded votes for Gore because the voter also wrote in Lieberman. unfortunately, Gore didn’t ask for recounts in those counties.
Gore had the chance to ask for a statewide recount and decided against it. Unfortunately, Gore was more interested in winning than in having a complete count.
Slate had a great dialog between a conservative and a liberal concerning the issues involved.
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the system devised by the Florida supreme court was unconstitutional. The Florida supreme court then changed its ruling to agree with the Supreme Court Decision.
The US supreme court ruling that I think was one of the worst rulings ever was the 5-4 vote to stop the counting. Personally, I think history will record this decision as the single worst decision in history.
However, because of the tactical decisions made by Gore, even if the Court had allowed the counting to continue, Gore still would have lost.
Of course, I could be completely wrong. After all I am a f#$$cking idiot.
Lou #24: Get over it
Mr. Scalia tells me to get over it.
Fine.
I will get over it.
When Scalia’s broken, rotting corpse lies on the front steps of the Supreme Court building, I will get over it.
When six of the seven gaps between the eight pillars on the front of the Supreme Court building are occupied by the lifeless, swinging remains of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice, and Gonzales—each held aloft by a well-tied hangman’s knot for the sport of crows—I will get over it.
When the absolute, obscene filth of neoconservatism has been washed from the soil of the Republic; when the Hannitys, the Limbaughs; the Coulters and the Becks of the land have all been driven into the sea; when those who have profited from these bipedal vermin have been forced to surrender the gains of their heinous financial rape of the nation as recompense for their having empowered such crimes against the People themselves—then I will get over it.
And not so much as a moment before….
Scalia is corrupt. He should be impeached.
Um, Steve (#54), tell us how you really feel.
Is it reasonable to assume that President Gore would not have attempted to pursue bin Laden in Pakistan by way of Baghdad?
I guess 4,000 dead American soldiers should just get over it.
On the upside, it would have been embarassing to watch President Gore accepting his Nobel Prize in a flight suit and codpiece.
“Is it reasonable to assume that President Gore would not have attempted to pursue bin Laden in Pakistan by way of Baghdad?”
Yes, because Gore, like most knowledgeable people, realizes that there was no connection between bin Laden and Baghdad.
“I guess 4,000 dead American soldiers should just get over it.”
The families of 4000 dead American soldiers should not just get over it. They should remember that the fault lies with the mishandling of foreign policy by George Bush.
While we’re at it, does this mean that all the people tortured by the US in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, overseas, and the families of those innocents who were murdered should get over it, too? The Katrina victims who were defrauded of the government money to rebuild their homes and communities?
I know that’s what the Republicans would like, but people don’t “get over” devastations. They leave scars.
I am not of the Christian temperament that pushes forgiveness as a blanket way of life. It can be considered only after the offender experiences remorse and suffers the consequences. Even then, some actions are too heinous for me to forgive.
I like it that Scalia has stopped pretending to be impartial, and is finally showing himself unashamedly as the slimy, partisan weasel that he has always denied being.
He’s probably convinced himself he’s doing it for “the children”.
The US supreme court ruling that I think was one of the worst rulings ever was the 5-4 vote to stop the counting. Personally, I think history will record this decision as the single worst decision in history.
I agree. This point is not mentioned nearly enough. Perhaps there can be some debate over the legality of a vote-counting system that lacks clear standards. (I personally think the standards were good enough.)
But I don’t think anyone can credibly claim that the Supreme Court acted properly in forbidding the sovereign State of Florida from counting the votes of its citizens. Especially since the Court then relied on that stoppage in certifying Bush the winner instead of allowing Florida to count the ballots under a different standard.
And the reason given by Bush was just insulting: If people actually look at the ballots and find out that Gore won, my presidency will be seen as illegitimate.
When we keep getting our wounds salted by the arrogance and greed and lawlessness of these thugs, it is pretty hard to get over it. As Steve has so well outlined, we have been watching these bullies walk over us and the constitution for ten long years. It is very hard to get over it. If we could see some justice, or remorse, or any sort of restoration of what has been stolen, then we might begin to heal. However we only see more crime and lawlessness.
Cmac@47—refer to post 45.
Ha, Scalia will be forever know as the supreme court nut job that changed an election and screwed a nation.
My advice: GET USE TO IT.
The “winner” of the 1876 election was called Rutherfraud B. Hayes. I wish some similar nickname for GWB had caught on.
But it’s nice to know that Scalia has some of us to gripe about. Still not over it after all these years!
….compliments of Vernikrump:
Before the 2000 election, Choice-Point unit Database Technologies, under a $4 million no-bid contract under the control of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was paid to identify felons who had illegally registered to vote. The ChoicePoint outfit altogether fingered 94,000 Florida residents. As it turned out, less than 3,000 had a verifiable criminal record; almost everyone on the list had the right to vote. The tens of thousands of purged citizens had something in common besides their innocence: The list was, in the majority, made up of African Americans and Hispanics, overwhelmingly Democratic voters. And that determined the race in which Harris named Bush the winner by 537 votes after a PARTIZAN SP stopped the count.
Scalia should not have participated in Bush v. Gore
The Code of Judicial Ethics required Scalia to recuse himself from that case because his son, Eugene Scalia, was then a lawyer with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, the firm representing Bush. (Scalia was not the only justice with a clear conflict of interest. Virginia Lamp Thomas, the wife of Associate Justice Clarence Thomasanother member of the pro-Bush majoritywas working on the Bush transition team.)
Scalia not only cast the deciding vote in the 5-4 Bush v. Gore ruling, he also wrote a separate opinion to justify the high courts order that halted the vote count in Florida to protect against irreparable harm to petitioner [Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. In other words, Scalia said that United States would suffer irreparable harm because tabulating the still uncounted ballots might have wiped out Bushs minuscule lead and put Al Gore in the White House.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
‘During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ‘ George Orwell